Re: [Paddlewise] Rudder redux

On 7/2/07, John Winters <jdwinters_at_eastlink.ca> wrote:

> So it is better to rely on opinion because you can't figure out a way to
> do
> it?


Are you now saying that Caffyn's data is opinion? I think that the only
"opinion" here is yours, not his.

Would you do it in a test tank?

Ship designers do it.


Once again you're throwing out a straw-man argument hoping to detour us into
a different argument. This debate is about whether data recorded concerning
miles traveled per day over many days is valid. I say that it is valid
empirical evidence collected by an expert in the field. You say it's
"anecdotal". You demanded Matt provide details to support his statements.
I'm asking you to do the same. Just how, exactly, is Caffyn's data
anecdotal? Why is it not valid? You keep throwing up detours.


> > Caffyn recorded a nearly-33% increase in daily mileage with a rudder
> > compared to no rudder.
>
> Are Caffyn's results applicable to all boats and all paddlers?


Again, a detour. No one here has alleged that Caffyn's data is applicable to
all boats or all paddlers. Or even under all conditions. I'm saying that his
data is valid; not "opinion". Caffyn himself refers to statistics based upon
his data. On what basis are you challenging it?

> If you don't agree with it, then provide some data (not test parameters)
> > to refute it.
>
> I made no claims. I don't have to prove anything to question the validity
> of
> someone's claims and their lack of proof.
>

Not unless you want some shred of credibility left, I guess. As a
"professional" kayak designer you have some responsibility to not throw
doubt upon someone's reputation without backing it up. You said that
Caffyn's data is "anecdotal evidence", a "story" and, now, "opinion" with
nothing but your own opinions to present as evidence for your side.

And now you throw around another technical term. People who aren't technical
often use the words "proof" and "evidence" as if they meant the same thing.
Scientists and engineers know that this is far from the case. There is very
little in science that is "proof" and few technicians will throw that term
around lightly. You should know, as a professional, that Caffyn doesn't need
"proof". His data stands by itself. Show us where it's wrong.


Craig Jungers
Royal City, WA
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************